◄►Bookmark◄❌►▲▼Toggle AllToC▲▼Add to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply

Search TextCase SensitiveExact WordsInclude Comments

List of Bookmarks

Why did Gen. Mike Flynn lie to the FBI about his December 2016 conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak?

Why did he not tell the FBI the truth?

As national security adviser to the president-elect, Flynn had called the ambassador. Message: Tell President Putin not to overreact to President Obama’s expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats. Trump will be president in three weeks, and we are committed to a new relationship.

Not only was this initiative defensible, it proved successful.

Putin accepted the loss of his diplomats and country houses on Long lsland and the Eastern Shore. Rather than expel U.S. diplomats in retaliation, he invited them and their families to the Kremlin’s New Year’s parties.

“Clearly, Putin believes the Trump presidency offers Russia the prospect of a better relationship with the United States. He appears to want this, and most Americans seem to want the same. After all, Hillary Clinton, who accused Trump of being ‘Putin’s puppet,’ lost.”

Flynn, it now appears, was not freelancing, but following instructions. His deputy, K. T. McFarland, sent an email to six Trump advisers saying that Obama, by expelling the Russians, was trying to “box Trump in diplomatically.”

“If there is a tit-for-tat escalation,” warned McFarland, “Trump will have difficulty improving relations with Russia.” Exactly.

Flynn was trying to prevent Russian retaliation. Yet, as the ex-director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, he had to know his call to Kislyak was being monitored and recorded.

So, again, why would he lie to the FBI about a conversation, the contents of which were surely known to the people who sent the FBI to question him?

The other charge of lying about a call with Kislyak was Flynn’s request for Russian help in getting postponed or canceled a Security Council vote on a resolution denouncing Israeli settlements on the West Bank.

Obama’s White House was backing the anti-Israel resolution. And Bibi Netanyahu had asked Trump to weigh in to block the vote.

Bottom line: Flynn, acting on instructions, tried to prevent a U.N. condemnation of Israel, and to dissuade Russia from a mass expulsion of U.S. diplomats, lest this poison the well against a rapprochement for which the American people had voted.

In the court of public opinion, Flynn’s actions would find broad support. Rather than deny knowledge of them, Trump should have taken credit for them.

Why the general would lie to the FBI about conversations he had to know U.S. intelligence had recorded is a puzzling question, but now also an irrelevant one, water over the dam.

For Trump’s general is now the newly conscripted collaborator of the media-Mueller-Democrat-deep state conspiracy to overturn the election of 2016 and bring down the Trump presidency.

Remarkable.

After 18 months, we have no evidence Trump colluded with Russia in hacking the emails of the DNC or John Podesta, which is what the FBI investigation was supposedly about.

There is no conclusive evidence Flynn committed a crime when, as national security adviser-designate, he tried to prevent Obama from sabotaging the policies Trump had run on — and won on.

Yet there is evidence Russian intelligence agents colluded with a British spy in the pay of the oppo research arm of the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign — to find dirt on Donald Trump.

And there is evidence James Comey’s FBI wanted to hire the British spy who appeared to have access to the Russian agents who appeared to possess all that wonderful dirt on the Donald.

It is hard to see how this ends well.

This weekend, after Flynn’s admission he lied to the FBI, Beltway media were slavering like Pavlov’s dogs at anticipated indictments and plea bargains by present and former White House aides, Trump family members, and perhaps Trump himself.

The joy on the TV talk shows was transparent.

Yet the media have already been badly damaged; first, by the relentless Trump attacks and the cheering for those attacks by a huge slice of the country; second, by their reflexive reaction. The media have behaved exactly like the “enemy” Trump said they were.

In this us-versus-them country, the media now seem to relish the role of “them.” The old proud journalistic boast to be objective and neutral reporters, observers and commentators is gone.

We are all partisans now.

As last Friday’s sudden 300-point drop in the Dow reveals, if Trump’s enemies bring him down, they will almost surely crash the markets and abort the recovery that took hold in Trump’s first year.

And if the establishment, repudiated by Trump’s victory, thinks it will be restored to the nation’s good graces if they destroy Trump, they are whistling past the graveyard.

When Caesar falls, the cheering for Brutus and Cassius tends to die down rather quickly. Then their turn comes.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

I think that after the Alabama election is out of the way, Trump just clears the deck. He gives Mueller (and Rosenstein) the sack and pardons those Mueller has gone after, taking the same tack he took with Arpaio, that the legal system was abused by the prosecutors in these cases. There is enough dirt on Mueller and Comey that Trump should be able to weather the media firestorm which will result for some of the reasons hinted at in Buchanan’s pessimistic view.

I think Mueller's team have fouled their own nests. Things change fast in Trumpville, the new name for DC. Gotta stay on your toes and follow Fox and Drudge. Flynn is now no threat to Trump. No matter how Mueller handles it. I think the FBI had something else on Flynn and are holding it over his head. They are a bunch of blackmailers it seems.

ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.

AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

Flynn’s pleading to the lying charge gets him off the hook for more serious charges, like conspiring to kidnap Gulen and return him to Turkey, which was undoubtedly freelance from the gig with Trump. Flynn essentially gets a walk, and Trump gets to distance himself from a more serious and sordid mess.

I guess Radical Center has a fetish for Caesar and communism and progressivism and the administrative state and spectacular misallocation of resources and the warfare / welfare state occasioned by Caesarism.

“Crash the markets and abort the recovery??” As if the two were related. These are just Trump talking points. Pat is living in the past if he thinks the stock market correlates in any way now with the real economy of goods and services.

I am reading Walter Millis, Road To War about the 1914 American press and the push to WW1.

The reality I glean from this book is that the press has always been a massive manipulation machine.
Perhaps more so at some times than others, but WW1 was an example of the same type of complete abandon of reason and impartiality.

The difference is that today’s internet helps at least a group of discerning people see through the lies. Far fewer people (other than Millis and a handful of others) saw through the pro-Anglo lies of the WW1 press.

I guess Radical Center has a fetish for Caesar and communism and progressivism and the administrative state and spectacular misallocation of resources and the warfare / welfare state occasioned by Caesarism.

Or perhaps he simply disagrees with the libertarian delusion that small government conservatism won't be voted away by the predictably progressive population that has been imported over the last fifty years, to your country.

One objection to the oversimplified statement that we should always root for the fall of whomever you are painting as "Caesar", is made by comment #4: we often can't be confident of who will take power after the revolution or collapse.

That's not an argument for submitting eternally to whatever totalitarian or authoritarian is in power. My prior comments should make clear that I vehemently oppose the warfare/welfare/surveillance State that has grown up in my country (the USA) and so much of the once somewhat-free Western world.

It IS an argument for taking a more nuanced view as to when drastic change is desireable enough to risk the grave possible consequences.

I guess Radical Center has a fetish for Caesar and communism and progressivism and the administrative state and spectacular misallocation of resources and the warfare / welfare state occasioned by Caesarism.

Or perhaps he simply disagrees with the libertarian delusion that small government conservatism won’t be voted away by the predictably progressive population that has been imported over the last fifty years, to your country.

Or perhaps he simply disagrees with the libertarian delusion that small government conservatism won't be voted away by the predictably progressive population that has been imported over the last fifty years, to your country.

Why would you conflate libertarianism with the oxymoronic phenomenon called small government conservatism?

Delusion thy name is faith in any monopolization of governance leading to anything other than tyranny and dystopia.

No form of limited constitutional government will survive the importation of tens of millions of Third World peoples from cultures with an even worse track record on individual liberty and responsibility and rule of law than our people have.

Whether you call it libertarianism or anything else, it will not survive, and already has not survived, that suicidal immivasion policy.

The delusion that because you stop voting, everyone else returns the favor, is your primary issue. Governments are importing third world voters for the expressed purpose of increasing their ability to produce tyranny and dystopia. Of course, you'll disregard all of this on moral grounds, which simply makes you a pacifistic coward.

I think that after the Alabama election is out of the way, Trump just clears the deck. He gives Mueller (and Rosenstein) the sack and pardons those Mueller has gone after, taking the same tack he took with Arpaio, that the legal system was abused by the prosecutors in these cases. There is enough dirt on Mueller and Comey that Trump should be able to weather the media firestorm which will result for some of the reasons hinted at in Buchanan's pessimistic view.

I think Mueller’s team have fouled their own nests. Things change fast in Trumpville, the new name for DC. Gotta stay on your toes and follow Fox and Drudge. Flynn is now no threat to Trump. No matter how Mueller handles it. I think the FBI had something else on Flynn and are holding it over his head. They are a bunch of blackmailers it seems.

Let us all remember, chaps, that Buchanan was in Nixon’s camp during Watergate. To this day, he is reluctant to admit that Nixon and his henchmen engaged in illegal activities. Exactly why Buchanan makes statements like:

“Why the general would lie to the FBI about conversations he had to know U.S. intelligence had recorded is a puzzling question, but now also an irrelevant one, water over the dam.”

Clearly, for Mueller, it is other than irrelevant.

“For Trump’s general is now the newly conscripted collaborator of the media-Mueller-Democrat-deep state conspiracy to overturn the election of 2016 and bring down the Trump presidency.”

That is the Alt Right narrative. In reality, it is a quest for truth and the implementation of the rule of law.

“After 18 months, we have no evidence Trump colluded with Russia in hacking the emails of the DNC or John Podesta, which is what the FBI investigation was supposedly about.”

Patrick ought to know that investigations take time, and that Mueller is not going to reveal his aces in the hole just to sate the appetite of those who insist that if there was evidence, it ought to have been revealed by now.

“There is no conclusive evidence Flynn committed a crime when, as national security adviser-designate, he tried to prevent Obama from sabotaging the policies Trump had run on — and won on.”

Flynn’s pleading to the lying charge gets him off the hook for more serious charges, like conspiring to kidnap Gulen and return him to Turkey, which was undoubtedly freelance from the gig with Trump. Flynn essentially gets a walk, and Trump gets to distance himself from a more serious and sordid mess.

Another way of looking at it is that Flynn’s plea illustrates that the Swamp couldn’t make anything more serious stick.

Patrick ought to know that investigations take time, and that Mueller is not going to reveal his aces in the hole just to sate the appetite of those who insist that if there was evidence, it ought to have been revealed by now.

The Swamp is going to be disappointed. It’s all a nothingburger. I’ve been saying that since Inauguration Day, and I’m saying it now, and I haven’t seen anything over the last two years to make me think otherwise.

Yes, investigations take time. So do fishing expeditions. So does political theater meant to look like an investigation.

Flynn could lie something in order to save his own skin (from the more serious charges unrelated to Trump or even Russia), and his lies could be impossible to prove either way. But the media will make it out to be a definitive proof, and if Trump gets politically weakened enough (maybe not), they might start impeachment. The Republican donors will already get their corporate tax cuts, so there's nothing in it for them anymore.

Flynn could lie something in order to save his own skin (from the more serious charges unrelated to Trump or even Russia), and his lies could be impossible to prove either way. But the media will make it out to be a definitive proof, and if Trump gets politically weakened enough (maybe not), they might start impeachment. The Republican donors will already get their corporate tax cuts, so there’s nothing in it for them anymore.

Your last sentence is an insightful observation that we don't hear much. Trump should have kept dangling some of what the fat cats want in terms of tax cuts, beyond the midterm elections, and demanded something for regular people in return even then.

For this reason, and for reasons of both policy and politics, Trump should have insisted on a tax package that resulted in some corporate tax relief but much more direct tax relief for actual human beings all along nearly the entire income scale.

Specifically, Trump could have kept the top income tax rate exactly where it is, and kept the AMT in place, merely raising the income thresholds needed to trigger that top rate and the AMT much higher than they are now.

With that extra revenue -- or less projected revenue loss -- he could have ensured that NO non-plutocrat's income tax went up. Which is not something he can say about the actual plan making its way toward passage. (My wife and I may actually pay MORE under the tax plan as it stands now, and we are far, far from wealthy, especially given how far our income DOESN'T go in Los Angeles. This is infuriating.)

Trump also could have allowed a longer period for phasing out or eliminating healthcare insurance subsidies, so as not to pull the rug out from under people and give the Dems easy ammo for 2018 and 2020 (I oppose the ACA but want to minimize the pain caused to regular people by repealing and reforming our current healthcare mess).

I might have even offered to INCREASE the top income tax rate (for people bringing in more than a million bucks per year, say) in exchange for only ONE low rate on everyone else. But that would hurt too many of the big Dem and Repub donors who live in a separate world from us little people, eh?

The fact that the corporate tax cuts are permanent but the individual rate cuts are temporary, tells us a lot about Trump's loyalties and priorities. And nothing good.

I guess Radical Center has a fetish for Caesar and communism and progressivism and the administrative state and spectacular misallocation of resources and the warfare / welfare state occasioned by Caesarism.

Yeaaah, that’s it.

“Fallacy of the false alternative” much?

One objection to the oversimplified statement that we should always root for the fall of whomever you are painting as “Caesar”, is made by comment #4: we often can’t be confident of who will take power after the revolution or collapse.

That’s not an argument for submitting eternally to whatever totalitarian or authoritarian is in power. My prior comments should make clear that I vehemently oppose the warfare/welfare/surveillance State that has grown up in my country (the USA) and so much of the once somewhat-free Western world.

It IS an argument for taking a more nuanced view as to when drastic change is desireable enough to risk the grave possible consequences.

Radical Center, please forgive my frivolity. Of course, I do not think that you support communism, progressivism and totalitarianism.

However, popular support for the devil you know is preferable to the devil you don't know doctrine has, in my estimation, hurt the cause of peace, prosperity, and liberty more than a it doesn't matter what ensues the decimation of a despotic regime phenomenon. Sometimes, it is more important to throw off the yoke of the immediate bondage than to endure it further out of fear that there might be a Lenin or a Mugabe to follow. In fact, it might be a matter of life and death.

Take the fellow who is being strangled by a Stolypin necktie - should he be more worried about his fate down the road or his more immediate concern of disentangling his neck from the Czarist hangman's noose?

Should a fugitive negro slave in 1858 be more worried about Lincoln and Sherman and Sheridan and their genocidal agenda or escaping the anti-liberty slave hunting losers on his tail?

Why would you conflate libertarianism with the oxymoronic phenomenon called small government conservatism?

Delusion thy name is faith in any monopolization of governance leading to anything other than tyranny and dystopia.

No form of limited constitutional government will survive the importation of tens of millions of Third World peoples from cultures with an even worse track record on individual liberty and responsibility and rule of law than our people have.

Whether you call it libertarianism or anything else, it will not survive, and already has not survived, that suicidal immivasion policy.

One can be an anarcho-free enterprise-individualist while also being a race realist.

There is no doubt that libertarianism has a much better chance of flourishing when the seeds of which are planted in the right cultural soil. That soil is neither located on the African continent nor on the south side of Chicago.

Flynn could lie something in order to save his own skin (from the more serious charges unrelated to Trump or even Russia), and his lies could be impossible to prove either way. But the media will make it out to be a definitive proof, and if Trump gets politically weakened enough (maybe not), they might start impeachment. The Republican donors will already get their corporate tax cuts, so there's nothing in it for them anymore.

Your last sentence is an insightful observation that we don’t hear much. Trump should have kept dangling some of what the fat cats want in terms of tax cuts, beyond the midterm elections, and demanded something for regular people in return even then.

For this reason, and for reasons of both policy and politics, Trump should have insisted on a tax package that resulted in some corporate tax relief but much more direct tax relief for actual human beings all along nearly the entire income scale.

Specifically, Trump could have kept the top income tax rate exactly where it is, and kept the AMT in place, merely raising the income thresholds needed to trigger that top rate and the AMT much higher than they are now.

With that extra revenue — or less projected revenue loss — he could have ensured that NO non-plutocrat’s income tax went up. Which is not something he can say about the actual plan making its way toward passage. (My wife and I may actually pay MORE under the tax plan as it stands now, and we are far, far from wealthy, especially given how far our income DOESN’T go in Los Angeles. This is infuriating.)

Trump also could have allowed a longer period for phasing out or eliminating healthcare insurance subsidies, so as not to pull the rug out from under people and give the Dems easy ammo for 2018 and 2020 (I oppose the ACA but want to minimize the pain caused to regular people by repealing and reforming our current healthcare mess).

I might have even offered to INCREASE the top income tax rate (for people bringing in more than a million bucks per year, say) in exchange for only ONE low rate on everyone else. But that would hurt too many of the big Dem and Repub donors who live in a separate world from us little people, eh?

The fact that the corporate tax cuts are permanent but the individual rate cuts are temporary, tells us a lot about Trump’s loyalties and priorities. And nothing good.

The fact that the corporate tax cuts are permanent but the individual rate cuts are temporary, tells us a lot about Trump’s loyalties and priorities. And nothing good.

Could be, but it could also be that Trump believes his own corporate sponsored BS. How many times have we heard that lowering the corporate tax rate will result in more money for R&D and investment leading to more and better jobs. How many times have we heard that allowing the corporations to repatriate offshore money at low tax rates will do the same.

There is no proof any of it is true. R&D and capital investment expenses are already written off and reduce corporate income, even if some of it has to be amortized. We already tried repatriation and it did no such thing. If it did anything, it was to enable mergers and acquisitions which eliminate jobs rather than create them.

The big problem we are having in the economy is that the people with disposable income already have more "stuff" than they can ever use. How do you get disposable income in the hands of people who will actually buy something? Cutting taxes by 10% for people who already don't pay them won't do much.

One objection to the oversimplified statement that we should always root for the fall of whomever you are painting as "Caesar", is made by comment #4: we often can't be confident of who will take power after the revolution or collapse.

That's not an argument for submitting eternally to whatever totalitarian or authoritarian is in power. My prior comments should make clear that I vehemently oppose the warfare/welfare/surveillance State that has grown up in my country (the USA) and so much of the once somewhat-free Western world.

It IS an argument for taking a more nuanced view as to when drastic change is desireable enough to risk the grave possible consequences.

Radical Center, please forgive my frivolity. Of course, I do not think that you support communism, progressivism and totalitarianism.

However, popular support for the devil you know is preferable to the devil you don’t know doctrine has, in my estimation, hurt the cause of peace, prosperity, and liberty more than a it doesn’t matter what ensues the decimation of a despotic regime phenomenon. Sometimes, it is more important to throw off the yoke of the immediate bondage than to endure it further out of fear that there might be a Lenin or a Mugabe to follow. In fact, it might be a matter of life and death.

Take the fellow who is being strangled by a Stolypin necktie – should he be more worried about his fate down the road or his more immediate concern of disentangling his neck from the Czarist hangman’s noose?

Should a fugitive negro slave in 1858 be more worried about Lincoln and Sherman and Sheridan and their genocidal agenda or escaping the anti-liberty slave hunting losers on his tail?

The Russian people were starving and suffering at the hands of a mass murdering brutal regime which had seen fit to incarcerate tens of thousands of political prisoners. In our zeal to condemn bolshevism, we often forget how many people were murdered by the Czarist regime.

Then, take the war. Why should any decent person, when faced with all of the brutality, corruption, murder and war-making, sit on the sideline when they could do something to overthrow the Czar? Should they cower in fear because Lenin?

Should a field hand, being beat to death, stripped of his liberty, forced to toil for an economic luddite, have preferred to be patient and have rooted for Robert E. Lee because slavery would eventually cease peacefully as it did in so many other countries instead of cheering on the blue-bellies?

Radical Center, please forgive my frivolity. Of course, I do not think that you support communism, progressivism and totalitarianism.

However, popular support for the devil you know is preferable to the devil you don't know doctrine has, in my estimation, hurt the cause of peace, prosperity, and liberty more than a it doesn't matter what ensues the decimation of a despotic regime phenomenon. Sometimes, it is more important to throw off the yoke of the immediate bondage than to endure it further out of fear that there might be a Lenin or a Mugabe to follow. In fact, it might be a matter of life and death.

Take the fellow who is being strangled by a Stolypin necktie - should he be more worried about his fate down the road or his more immediate concern of disentangling his neck from the Czarist hangman's noose?

Should a fugitive negro slave in 1858 be more worried about Lincoln and Sherman and Sheridan and their genocidal agenda or escaping the anti-liberty slave hunting losers on his tail?

The Russian people were starving and suffering at the hands of a mass murdering brutal regime which had seen fit to incarcerate tens of thousands of political prisoners. In our zeal to condemn bolshevism, we often forget how many people were murdered by the Czarist regime.

Then, take the war. Why should any decent person, when faced with all of the brutality, corruption, murder and war-making, sit on the sideline when they could do something to overthrow the Czar? Should they cower in fear because Lenin?

Should a field hand, being beat to death, stripped of his liberty, forced to toil for an economic luddite, have preferred to be patient and have rooted for Robert E. Lee because slavery would eventually cease peacefully as it did in so many other countries instead of cheering on the blue-bellies?

In our zeal to condemn bolshevism, we often forget how many people were murdered by the Czarist regime.

Nonsense. There was not even a death penalty in Russia. The secret police Okhrana for 130 million nation had less than 2000 employees. Circa 4000 government officials were assassinated by anarchists and leftists and government did not really retaliate. And then they paid for it.

No form of limited constitutional government will survive the importation of tens of millions of Third World peoples from cultures with an even worse track record on individual liberty and responsibility and rule of law than our people have.

Whether you call it libertarianism or anything else, it will not survive, and already has not survived, that suicidal immivasion policy.

On this point, we agree.

One can be an anarcho-free enterprise-individualist while also being a race realist.

There is no doubt that libertarianism has a much better chance of flourishing when the seeds of which are planted in the right cultural soil. That soil is neither located on the African continent nor on the south side of Chicago.

Flynn could lie something in order to save his own skin (from the more serious charges unrelated to Trump or even Russia), and his lies could be impossible to prove either way. But the media will make it out to be a definitive proof, and if Trump gets politically weakened enough (maybe not), they might start impeachment. The Republican donors will already get their corporate tax cuts, so there’s nothing in it for them anymore.

IANAL, but the impression I get is that plea bargains involve a lot of stacking; the more charges you can pile on, the more the plea-bargainer will be motivated to get results (i.e., nail whoever he’s rolling over on) and not dick prosecutors around. This weak ass tea Flynn’s being charged with shows that Mueller doesn’t even have anything to “stack” (again, the impression I get is that it’s much easier to throw a charge onto the plea-bargain stack, than to get a conviction in court on the same charge).

What I read said that Flynn is facing a maximum of 15 months in Club Fed (very easy time), minimum of 0 time. Sword of Damocles, it ain’t.

One can be an anarcho-free enterprise-individualist while also being a race realist.

Yeah but eventually most will leave the fence and become either full-blown Libertardian who keeps mum about race, or an altrighter with libertarian leanings. Libertarian circles are too monumentally stupid and spergy for people with common sense to tolerate for long.

Your last sentence is an insightful observation that we don't hear much. Trump should have kept dangling some of what the fat cats want in terms of tax cuts, beyond the midterm elections, and demanded something for regular people in return even then.

For this reason, and for reasons of both policy and politics, Trump should have insisted on a tax package that resulted in some corporate tax relief but much more direct tax relief for actual human beings all along nearly the entire income scale.

Specifically, Trump could have kept the top income tax rate exactly where it is, and kept the AMT in place, merely raising the income thresholds needed to trigger that top rate and the AMT much higher than they are now.

With that extra revenue -- or less projected revenue loss -- he could have ensured that NO non-plutocrat's income tax went up. Which is not something he can say about the actual plan making its way toward passage. (My wife and I may actually pay MORE under the tax plan as it stands now, and we are far, far from wealthy, especially given how far our income DOESN'T go in Los Angeles. This is infuriating.)

Trump also could have allowed a longer period for phasing out or eliminating healthcare insurance subsidies, so as not to pull the rug out from under people and give the Dems easy ammo for 2018 and 2020 (I oppose the ACA but want to minimize the pain caused to regular people by repealing and reforming our current healthcare mess).

I might have even offered to INCREASE the top income tax rate (for people bringing in more than a million bucks per year, say) in exchange for only ONE low rate on everyone else. But that would hurt too many of the big Dem and Repub donors who live in a separate world from us little people, eh?

The fact that the corporate tax cuts are permanent but the individual rate cuts are temporary, tells us a lot about Trump's loyalties and priorities. And nothing good.

The fact that the corporate tax cuts are permanent but the individual rate cuts are temporary, tells us a lot about Trump’s loyalties and priorities. And nothing good.

Could be, but it could also be that Trump believes his own corporate sponsored BS. How many times have we heard that lowering the corporate tax rate will result in more money for R&D and investment leading to more and better jobs. How many times have we heard that allowing the corporations to repatriate offshore money at low tax rates will do the same.

There is no proof any of it is true. R&D and capital investment expenses are already written off and reduce corporate income, even if some of it has to be amortized. We already tried repatriation and it did no such thing. If it did anything, it was to enable mergers and acquisitions which eliminate jobs rather than create them.

The big problem we are having in the economy is that the people with disposable income already have more “stuff” than they can ever use. How do you get disposable income in the hands of people who will actually buy something? Cutting taxes by 10% for people who already don’t pay them won’t do much.

The Russian people were starving and suffering at the hands of a mass murdering brutal regime which had seen fit to incarcerate tens of thousands of political prisoners. In our zeal to condemn bolshevism, we often forget how many people were murdered by the Czarist regime.

Then, take the war. Why should any decent person, when faced with all of the brutality, corruption, murder and war-making, sit on the sideline when they could do something to overthrow the Czar? Should they cower in fear because Lenin?

Should a field hand, being beat to death, stripped of his liberty, forced to toil for an economic luddite, have preferred to be patient and have rooted for Robert E. Lee because slavery would eventually cease peacefully as it did in so many other countries instead of cheering on the blue-bellies?

In our zeal to condemn bolshevism, we often forget how many people were murdered by the Czarist regime.

Nonsense. There was not even a death penalty in Russia. The secret police Okhrana for 130 million nation had less than 2000 employees. Circa 4000 government officials were assassinated by anarchists and leftists and government did not really retaliate. And then they paid for it.

Why would you conflate libertarianism with the oxymoronic phenomenon called small government conservatism?

Delusion thy name is faith in any monopolization of governance leading to anything other than tyranny and dystopia.

The delusion that because you stop voting, everyone else returns the favor, is your primary issue. Governments are importing third world voters for the expressed purpose of increasing their ability to produce tyranny and dystopia. Of course, you’ll disregard all of this on moral grounds, which simply makes you a pacifistic coward.

The delusion that because you stop voting, everyone else returns the favor, is your primary issue. Governments are importing third world voters for the expressed purpose of increasing their ability to produce tyranny and dystopia. Of course, you'll disregard all of this on moral grounds, which simply makes you a pacifistic coward.

I may be a pacifist, but I am not a coward. If any third world trash threatens me or you, I will kill them.

“General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit,” Mr Kelner said.”

So what’s wrong with Mueller giving Flynn a chance to ‘tell his story’ in return for giving him a great deal for his sins of lying to the FBI? Nothing Pat. Are you afraid –market crash?– what he’s going to say?

Use of multiple, non-Anonymous handles for commenting on this webzine is strongly discouraged, and your secret (real or fictitious) email allows you to authenticate your commenter-identity, preventing others from assuming it, accidentally or otherwise.

Therefore, keeping your Name+Email combination is important, and the 'Remember' feature saves it for you as a cookie on your device/browser.

Also, activating the 'Remember' feature enables the Agree/Disagree/LOL/Troll buttons on all comments.

Email Replies to my Comment

Body of Comment

Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter

It has occurred. But those numbers are very low. It has been quite the hat trick for people to use what is a issue of privacy protecting all involved, especially the accuser into accusations of cover-up.
All faiths linked to scripture wrestle with the admonition of addressing issues among ...

I said 15-50% of priests are likely gay
In reality, statements of this nature are nonsensical, which is, in fact, the point if the article.
There is no such thing as 'being gay'-there is only the act of sodomy. Perhaps the habitual state of being a sodomite could be called 'being gay', but...

That verse is followed by this one:
8 And why not say—as we are accused and as some claim we say—that we should do evil that good may come of it? Their penalty is what they deserve.
Obviously, he is bringing up the counterargument only to refute it.
Paul is against circumcision of ...

So in the end,
you don't know what the methodology was and you have no idea how those numbers for the number of supposed same sex practitioners were arrive at.
But and you have the ability to soothsay who is a said practitioner by watching catholics on EWTN.

I am going to reject any attempt to wrestle with false dichotomies.
I have been friends with and taught those engaged in this behavior. I have supped, laughed and commiserated with them as well. What I cannot do and will not do is condone or support such behavior.
I have to reject said b...

I said 15-50% of priests are likely gay, NOT that 15-50% have been accused of sex abuse of minors. I included the Wikipedia address for an article which links to others sources for the 15-50% figure.
You devoted your entire 2nd paragraph to the sex abuse scandal which I didn't even mention in my...

Pompous Prat is a cleverly cutsie term that tries to obfuscate immoral behavior, of which Paul displayed plenty, including peterpuffing. And lying. "For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" – St. Paul, Romans 3:7Does your Jewish ...

Even if many of the allegations are false and made for financial gain, many of them are not false.
It's naïve and foolish to automatically believe all the allegations, or to reflexively disbelieve all of them in light of the evidence.
The top of the church is manifestly evil. Stop supporting ...

moral... truth...
There is nothing "moral" about the actions of the collective western Christians, and their bastard cousins, the Jews. Whatever they have achieved, and the inevitable evil they have become is a result of satanic levels of greed and psychopathy, under the facade of "superior" c...

Of course letting enemies harm us or our families, friends, or countrymen is morally perverse and wrong. Literally suicidal, depending on who those enemies are and what their own philosophy is.
Christians and good Christian-sympathizing people never have followed "turn the other cheek" en mas...

Wholeheartedly agreed.
But I'd guess that the whole sick crew of archbishops, bishops, and cardinals need to be thrown out en masse, not just the pope. Don't trust them again and disqualify them from ever serving in any position in the church.
And start rooting out the sodomite culture i...

Context does indeed matter. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. -The Catechism [source: The Vatican]Do you accept gays with respect, compassion, and sensitivity, or not? Do you avoid every sign ...

Right on. One of the reasons we left the Catholic Church.
Beyond merely allowing normal married men with a wife and children to become priests, they should express a strong preference for such men as priests, maybe even require it.

I have that number at about 3% of the clergy for the entire clergy , but 4% in the US, is something I wouldn't dispute, though it's generous in my view. Then when including all clergy priests bishops, cardinals, nuns against the active Catholic membership those numbers fall even further.
Th...

My comment is in reference to Paul's press for Timothy to get a circumcision. If he had asked me that question or said in order to go -- you must get circumcised -- yikes and yikes ---
"Uhhh no thanks Paul, maybe the next trip or I will catch up with Barnabas. Jews or no jews, I can barely ...

I suspect a lot of people wanted to tell Paul to take a hike, beginning with Ananias who baptized him and continuing with all the Apostles who had accompanied Jesus throughout his earthly career. Notice Claudius Lysias couldn't wait to dump him on Governor Felix.
Thus does God find uses even ...

Even if it were just these 1000 years, not 5000 per your comment that I have no argument with, the Chinese still did much less over those 1000 than Americans did in 300.
Also, yes, the Chinese had civil wars that killed more men than Americans that were killed in a all US wars combined that mo...

Context matters, The frame into which words are encompassed matters.
You note a term and apply a meaning because in your view, it's in a lexicon. But clearly, the possible meanings only have relevance to material if they in context the align with the possible meanings in the same.
For example...

You will not hear him expand. Vague public comments are his way of acting. I couldn't imagine anything more effective. The Catechism is quite clear on homosexuality, a sin.
Buchanan is hoping for a Muller papacy. May God grant him his wish.
The Catholic Church has been a force for good duri...

15-50%?!? Across time and all over the world, I guess. Sheer prejudice. The "data" you cited is anti-church propaganda. Who actually did the polling? Who would answer the question? In which country? The US is not the same as Argentina or Syria.
A Catholic priest should be celibate, whatever h...